Neocon Worldviews Secede from Unions

September 13, 2010

Newt Gingrich: Obama May Hold ‘Kenyan, Anti-Colonial’ Worldview: [Alert: Code language for a “rebellious ni**er” follows.]  “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”

President Obama and his PR team did “con” the public during the last campaign – thus criticizing and lambasting what has taken place since then is appropriate, within warranted dissent and protest.  But, this level of endless “pals around with terrorists” counter-campaigning from the far-right represents the lowest level of gutter slime.  Obviously, the republicans are so mad in their quest to return to power (a power Obama has given them anyway by means of appeasement, and by being a Blue Dog champion) that they will never stop their talking points propaganda charade/parade – no matter what it takes.

The following related headlines (and a link) further represent how far they are (ACTually) willing to go in fomenting hysteria:

GOP Members Were Pushing Me To Advocate ‘Civil Uprising’

Rick Perry Won’t Give Up On Secession / Texas Secession Now

Another fair and balanced summary: (It would be “authentically dishonest” to summarize them, and their goals, in any other way.)
“I think [they] worked very hard at being [people] who [are] [immoral], [unreasonable], [extreme], [rigidly polar], transparent, [and] accommodating [to fellow neocons, regardless of offense] – [all] of which [is] true.”  “In the [Pravda] tradition, [they were just] being the [people] [their puppet masters] needed [them] to be in order to achieve the position[s] [they] needed to achieve.”

Chuck Norris: “What does it take to get Gina and I off our ranch in Texas.  An act of Congress?  No Way.  What it takes is God or Glenn Beck.”  Glenn Beck: “You can’t convince me that the founding fathers wouldn’t allow you to secede.”  And, let’s not forget: Palin Pals Around with Secessionists:

Bookmark and Share

Boycott Google: Save Net Neutrality

August 10, 2010

Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse: “The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.”

Action: Boycotts of Google’s search engine (and/or advertisements).  Pledge to use another search engine (and stick to it) from now on, until Google changes its stance.  This will take time.   But, if enough people make the move, it will get results.

Bottom line: Once again, we are being sold out — by, from, and to corporate powers.  Do you see Obama on stage making fierce pledges to save or protect Net Neutrality — no matter what?  Not a chance.  It’s the same scenario as with the Public Option.  As a result, WE have to make the difference.

Tell the FCC * Al Franken Petition

Google: Don't Be Evil

Facebook Boycott

Google and Verizon Attack Net Neutrality

[Remember when AOL grew so big that they felt they could get away with charging $24.95 for dial-up connection speeds – while even MSN was sticking with 21.95?  It was the beginning of the end of their dominance.  They are now a shell of what they used to be.  The script also applies here.  Google has lost touch with its core, and is selling us out.  With boycotts growing exponentially, their dominoes may also begin to fall – as they should.  Google can reverse the present course, or face the consequences of a new one.]

Do you believe in speaking Truth to Power – no matter what level of stature the powered hold?  Do you believe in Fighting the Good Fight – without backing down, regardless of the level of evil you may face?  Do you believe the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our country – and that it is on the verge of being nullified in a series of final (corporate) steps?  If so, Stand Up Now – while your Voices can still be Heard.

Bookmark and Share

FOX News Presents WTC 7

April 24, 2010

Recently, two prominent articles were published – in opposing veins: “NPR & Trust in Government,” by Robert Shetterly (04/19), which called out NPR for allowing the propaganda operative Philip Zelikow to “frame [a] discussion” on “Trust in government,” while failing to note his long record of purposeful (world stage) obfuscation, including a treacherous role in the area of WTC 7, and “Shame On Jesse Ventura!,” by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro (another operative) (04/21), who asserts “that [Larry] Silverstein planned to use controlled demolition on WTC 7” – as if it’s common knowledge/no big deal.  The focus here is on Shapiro’s brash, out of the blue, aggressiveness (under the cover of being clueless to the overall picture/consequences), while Shetterly’s should be read for many reasons: clarity, as a depiction of rare courage in our dominant landscape, and as a partial portrayal of how Timing works in our fabricated environment.


Perhaps what Ventura is missing is that there is probably more incontrovertible evidence and more witnesses who have already established what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 than most major historical events.  To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.

Regarding WTC 7, the major “news” Shapiro is presently “sharing” (upcoming exclusive!) destroys “the conventional historical account.”  So, was he “intellectually dishonest and nonsensical” in all of his relative writings since 9/11 – until this month?  Yet now, he can be taken as honest, wise, and forthcoming?  Further, all “evidence” to the contrary of the “historical account” was banished from allowable discussion or review from Day One – as were any testimonies of opposing “witnesses.”  (What changed?)

Shapiro: “I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero . . . , and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

Here’s a quote from one of those other witnesses, Barry Jennings (who didn’t have a column, and was not permitted to speak freely without a modern Scarlet letter):

I’m just confused about one thing . . . , why WTC 7 went down in the first place.  I know what I heard.  I heard explosions.  The explanation I got was, it was the fuel-oil tank.  I’m an old boiler guy.  If it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.

Exclusive! :

Shapiro: Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein . . . was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

Got that?  Remember all the uproar over the Silverstein video (“Pull It”) – scenarios of which he personally denied in Public, over an over, for years?  (New angle!)  “Already unstable and expected to fall.”  Remember this: 1) No plane hit WTC 7.  2) “Fires [alone] have never [In History] caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse [including core columns],” – not  “before or after September 11th, 2001.”  Moreover, review/remember NIST’s “Officially” “Scientificconclusion:

Yet! :

Shapiro: A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives.  Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option.  There was no secret.  There was no conspiracy (emphasis added).

“Many [on the inside] were aware of this possible option.”  Really?  How “many” people (across the earth) would regard this as the first they ever heard of it?  Are we to believe that this article is the first members of NIST and the 9/11 Commission are hearing of it?  Barry Jennings was inside.  Did he, from the occurrence until his death, consider himself as in on the openness, without any “secret” “conspiracy” ramifications?

Why?  Why would Shapiro make such fomenting claims as Casual Facts (at this time)?  How clearly obvious is this as a representation of Subversive (“discredited”) planting from a “[defaming]” Provocateur?  One answer, as referenced in a recent post:

Another in a series of setups: First, controlling interests decide what direction, or policy, will be implemented.  Next, many months ahead, they dispense ‘talking points’ to certain major publications and pliable ‘news’ sources.  Then, people are incrementally (sold) ‘informed’ as to what is inevitably upcoming.  Under the guise of facts simply being reported, it works like a well-timed machine.

The Keys: What this would mean (supposedly unbeknownst to Shapiro): 1) NY and U.S. government officials did not inform the public (for at least 8½ years).  (Why?  What benefits would ensue?  Control of narrative, which equals controlled reactions – as well as the sphere of questions.)  2) They tarnished, ridiculed, and destroyed entire livelihoods of numerous people who challenged the official storyline through flourishing “conspiracy theories” – without, for at least 8½ years, ever acknowledging even the possibility of demolition.  (Modus operandi: fully utilizing the “paranoid, delusional pack of lies” angle/label.)  3) It may explain why all WTC 7 references were left out of the 9/11 Commission report.  But, it would also clarify the worldwide subterfuge of NIST’s 2008 (guided) assertions – as well as all the other attributing (staged) “reports” and “scientific” conclusions put forward.  4) For even the possibility of demolition standby to be true, WTC 7 had to have been rigged – AHEAD.  (See relevant section in “The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers” from last September:

Unsurprisingly, they might come up with a statement like: ‘Well, NIST did what they were directed to do.  But, now that this has come out (where, undeniably, we could not have set WTC 7 up – while it was burning), our currently released position is one where we have been secretly rigging buildings all over the U.S. – ahead of time – just in case it’s needed – for many years.’)

5) If rigging ahead is finally admitted (used), the associated revelations are staggering in their clarifications.  6) LIE after lie after lie after lie, after report after report after report, year after year after year.  (Yet, Believe us NowThere’s new (old/“minitrue”) information!!)

Controlled demolitions.  Controlled presentations.  And yes, Shapiro “should be ashamed of himself and embarrassed” (to the point of begging God for forgiveness), but he does not work within or for the same world we perceive; he works within and for the elite (who mold our perceptions):

Karl Rove: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.  And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.  We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

(Why?  What benefits would ensue?  Control of narrative, which equals controlled reactions – as well as the sphere of questions.)  (That way, everything becomes “Fair and Balanced.”)

Update (11/16/2010): Geraldo Rivera: “It is an Intriguing topic.  I certainly am much more open about it than I was, and it is because of the involvement of the 9/11 families and all these engineers and architects.  Clearly they know more than I do.”

Notice how he gives no credit to 9/11 Truthers, in general, regardless of how long they have fought — and withstood national trashings.  Nevertheless, it is interesting to see these new angles (of enlightenment) from a “Balanced” (cough) FOX.

The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers
NPR “Obscures the Truth”
World Stage Actors
InfoWars Article

Bookmark and Share

Free Speech for People – Not Corporations

January 21, 2010

Free Speech for People

“On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections.  The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.  This cannot stand.  Sign up to protest this decision and protect our democracy!

Free speech is for people — not corporations.”

Greg Palast: “Would . . .  Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin?  Ya betcha!

Thom Hartmann: “Benito Mussolini invented a new form of government where corporations ran the government – he called it ‘fascism.‘”

Keith Olbermann: U.S. Government for Sale:

Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress

National March For Campaign Finance Reform

SCOTUS: Justice Stevens’ Dissenting Opinion

Move to Amend Petition

Bookmark and Share

The Washington Post: A Ministry of Truth

January 6, 2010

The Washington Post’s publishing of complete propaganda from Peter G. Peterson (Fiscal TImes: “Support Grows for Tackling Nation’s Debt”) is another critical example of the end of all objective credibility within our predominant media landscape.  This level of boldness makes it undeniably clear that the Ministry of Truth’s example, regardless of its ultimate immorality, is one now wholly embraced by the majority of the Fourth Estate.  “Have you left no sense of decency?”

Washington Post Lets Pete Peterson Write The News On The Deficit

Mogul Buying Up Reporters to Promote Regressive Agenda

Washington Post Lets Lobbyists Write Its Stories


The Proletariat

Bookmark and Share

Re: Bob Cesca Pissed Off About Health Care Reform

December 17, 2009

Bob Cesca: “I’m pissed off at health care reform.” (Well, maybe it’s more like frustration?)  “I’m pissed off that President Obama ‘thanked’ the independent senator from Connecticut even though the senator nearly killed health care reform this week.”  (But, I won’t go any further in criticizing the President  — who campaigned on “If a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house” — even though he set the stage for this outcome with sabotaging statements, after the election, like “the Public Option is just one sliver,” has refused from the beginning to stand up for anything remotely progressive, and, was still coddling other corporate sellout senators after they repulsively propagandized the entire nation with “Death Panel” assertions.)  “I’m pissed off at the Senate,” “cable news,” “Rahm Emanuel,” and “the Republicans.”  (Yet, I’m not going to allow my positive view to be swayed by reality.)  “I’m pissed off that I can’t, in good conscience, allow my anger to coerce me into believing that we should ‘kill this bill.’” (Unlike Rep. “Is This the Best We Can Do?” Kucinich, Dr. Howard Dean, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, and Michael Moore, I refuse to make a “final straw” standno matter how far this goes.)  (Like the former Single-Payer champion Rep. Anthony Weiner, who transformed into a dissembling preacher for the administration,) “I have no other choice but to settle for what is.  For now.”  (True, I could make other choices, like not putting lipstick on pigs.  Regardless, I will hold out for anything that passes, and call it a win.)  “Lack of insurance,” “medical bankruptcies and deaths” will be overcome.  (How?  By mandating that everyone buy private policies [“it makes them criminals if they don’t”] — which they cannot afford Now — or, especially Later).  Let us not accept pure spin, while we’re being sold out, as “the good.”  Let us not forget that what was absolutely possible — in a present tense, is now referred to as “the perfect” — in a past tense.

Olbermann: Ruined Senate Bill Unsupportable

HopeOver, HopeLash, HopeBreak

Boycott Over Joe Lieberman

Rep. Kucinich, Dr. Dean, and Michael Moore Caved for Politics’ Sake.

Bookmark and Share

Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million

December 15, 2009

Partial Reality: Howard Dean: “This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate.  Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.” Corporately-Compromised Response: Sen. Durbin: “I disagree with Dr. Dean.  I think if he would sit back and look at 31 million Americans who would have health insurance as a result of this bill.  How do you say to them: ‘Sorry you can’t have health insurance.  We think this bill can be better.'”

Yes, “31 million [additional] Americans . . . would have health insurance” – because, as voiceless and powerless serfs, they would be Compelled into buying Private Plans/Coverage.  Right now, you could say to them: “Sorry you can’t have health insurance” – because you cannot Afford it.  And, when we are done, it will cost even more.  Yet, that’s not a problem with the Corporately-sponsored Senators or Representatives.  That’s your problem, “because, hey, [they’re solving] the health care crisis!  Everyone will have health care!”  No Single-Payer.  No Public Option.  No allowance for people between 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare.  No competition for private insurers.  No re-importation of drugs from Canada (because of another secret White House deal with Big Pharma).  Then, finally, Senator “I can be bought, often” Lieberman and his allies can be pleased with the outcome.  “Is This the Best We Can Do?”  Again, no.  But, since a majority of the New Majority have revealed themselves for what they actually are, and who they really serve, we can take a step back and see more Truth of how “the meek” and their circumstances are regarded by the elite.  Mantra: Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million.  Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million.

Postscript (as an Open Letter): Senator Lieberman: “I think my colleagues know . . . that I’ve been opposed to a government-created, government-run insurance company.”  Why do you hate Medicare, Sen. Lieberman?  Is it because of the “Socialistic” focus on providing medical insurance as well as prescription drug coverage for people who are older, and/or those who have certain disabilities – like Veterans?  Would you prefer them to be subject to “personal responsibility” mandates – even if the result was exponential agony on the streets?  Does this quote from Darwin often ring in your mind? : “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”  Why do you love private (corporate) insurance monopolies – whose focus is not on providing health care, but on denying as much treatment as possible and on canceling policies – according to a Wall Street profit model?  Did you also envy Enron?  Further, did it bother you that so many lost their life savings in that worldwide scam?  Or, was the latter plundering their own fault for not being the fittest at the top of the chain in a dog-eat-dog survival game (pyramid)?  Why do you hate regular people (us)?  Is it because we did not pull up our bootstraps far enough to have stored $3 million in the bank for medical emergencies?  Or, is it because our stature in life was preordained – according to you and your kind (the elect, prosperous, and chosen), whose laws are sealed within Social Darwinism?

Bookmark and Share